6/27/11

There's beenalotoftalk lately about cloud-based music services. [Editor's note: all of those links are worth reading, if you have some time. You know you do.] If the concept is new to you, here's the gist: instead of storing your MP3s (or ideally, FLAC files) on your computer, you store them on someone else's server, and access them over the internet. It's not a new concept, but recently it's gotten a lot of buzz and helped revive the horrendously overused term "cloud" to mean "something that lives on a remote server." All web sites live in the cloud, and you access them from wherever you are. The big difference here is that music used to be something you owned, not something to which you (essentially) rented access.

I've had my own version of the cloud for a while now. Before there was Google Music, Apple's iCloud, or Amazon Cloud Player, there was the Squeezebox. For years now, I've used some simple server software, a decent home internet connection, and a dynamic DNS service to let myself stream my music from any other computer. The benefit for me is that I don't have to upload my sizable music collection (most of which is in FLAC, meaning the files take up a lot more space) to someone else's servers. This could realistically take days if not weeks, since I have a pretty low upload speed at home. Second, I'm not relying on a third party to give me access to my music. If Google or Amazon decides that they don't trust the provenance of one of my tracks, that's too bad for me - I simply lose access to it. Or if they decide that cloud-based music services are no longer a good business for them to be in, that's the end of that. Third, I have control over how my files are organized, tagged, listed, sorted, etc. - basically I am in control of the metadata and how I access it. And as we all know, metadata is cool [PDF].

But it goes deeper than that. At heart, I'm a collector, and I like the idea that I own my music. I don't want to give up control over to it to someone else, nor am I remotely comfortable with the idea of renting my music from a service like Rhapsody. I used to feel the same way about DVDs - I wanted to own them (I still do), because owning them feels good. A DVD library, much like a book library and certainly a music library, says something about its owner. I know this is somewhat ridiculous, especially in my case because all of my DVDs are in crates (New York apartments aren't huge on storage space), not visible to the public. I have similar qualms about switching from printed books to the Kindle (which I love). It just doesn't feel the same to be renting access to books as opposed to actually owning them. And yet I couldn't wait to move from physical CDs to digital files.

But despite all that, I do download books to the Kindle. And I love streaming movies from Netflix. But music is different - I'm not reading a book or watching a movie for 8 hours a day, but I have music on non-stop during my workday. And on my headphones when I ride the subway or walk the dog (unless I'm listening to the radio or a podcast). Music occupies a unique and very large place in my media consumption pantheon, and so for now, at least, I'm not willing to give mine up to someone else. I will suffer for this, I'm sure. For example, there is still no good, reliable way to stream from the Squeezebox to my Android phone (I've tried other services like Subsonic, with less-than-great results). And while it's easy for me to stream my music to any computer, it takes some setup and a bit of work - not a lot, but not as little as just downloading and installing the Google Music player, for example. But despite some drawbacks, maintaining my own "cloud" just feels right to me, and so that's how I'll be rolling. At least until something better comes along.

Why?

This is my place to rant, rave, gush, and whatever other verbs come to mind about the music I love, and the technology I use to find/listen to/share it. It's also a place for me to post my own musical creations for all to enjoy.